. What makes him so powerful or whatever that he couldn't work right away in the sequel?

He's *one* of the most powerful cosmic villains in the Marvel U, but he's not THE most powerful, nor is he the end-all, be-all, "ultimate" Avengers villain that some people here erroneously claim him to be. Hell, he's not generally associated with the Avengers specifically, but instead acts as an ubervillain to Marvel's more cosmic characters, like Adam Warlock, Silver Surfer, Guardians of the Galaxy and Infinity Watch.

He is far more powerful than Loki, that's for sure, but there's still a ton of villains and groups in the Avengers rogues' gallery that can give the team one helluva fight for many sequels to come. Posters here are just exaggerating (and are just plain wrong) when they act like he needs to be saved for the climax, because (they believe, wrongly) that Avengers will have no more "big guns" to fight after him.

I thought it would be cool to see Bruce Willis as Thanos and as Death, you know who would be really interesting? Zooey Deschanel. She has that otherworldly beauty but she's cool as well. Both she and Bruce would work wonders with Whedon's wit I reckon.

I could see them sort of being like the Baron and his wife from 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'. You know, gooey and sickeningly sweet with love one second, kind of masochistic the next.

He's *one* of the most powerful cosmic villains in the Marvel U, but he's not THE most powerful, nor is he the end-all, be-all, "ultimate" Avengers villain that some people here erroneously claim him to be. Hell, he's not generally associated with the Avengers specifically, but instead acts as an ubervillain to Marvel's more cosmic characters, like Adam Warlock, Silver Surfer, Guardians of the Galaxy and Infinity Watch.

He is far more powerful than Loki, that's for sure, but there's still a ton of villains and groups in the Avengers rogues' gallery that can give the team one helluva fight for many sequels to come. Posters here are just exaggerating (and are just plain wrong) when they act like he needs to be saved for the climax, because (they believe, wrongly) that Avengers will have no more "big guns" to fight after him.

You're right in Thanos not being the most powerful villain in the Marvel Universe, but it's his intellect and use of the Infinity Gauntlet that put's him ahead of being more powerful than him.

He also actively wants to destroy everything in the universe while most uber-powerful being just exist and maintain balance.

He is far more powerful than Loki, that's for sure, but there's still a ton of villains and groups in the Avengers rogues' gallery that can give the team one helluva fight for many sequels to come. Posters here are just exaggerating (and are just plain wrong) when they act like he needs to be saved for the climax, because (they believe, wrongly) that Avengers will have no more "big guns" to fight after him.

Has anyone said that? What's been said is that there are no bigger guns to fight. You can't even contradict that, because it's so very, very true. There's a reason why in the film

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Thanos' explicit goal is taking over the universe.

Because he's meant to be the ultimate threat. There's a reason that he is the man behind the curtain in 1 and teased before a smaller more personal movie. They are building him up.

Could they have done it differently? Maybe, but at this point, thinking he'll get paid off in 2 and that the Avengers trilogy will suddenly take a new direction with a new background baddie in #3 just sounds silly.

. What makes him so powerful or whatever that he couldn't work right away in the sequel?

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Thanos' schtick is that he's a super powerful alien with a vast army (the one he lent to Loki, it seems) that is out to get an uber-powerful device that will make him virtually omnipotent. In the comics, it's the Infinity Gauntlet, in the movies it says he's questing for the Cosmic Cube in his plan to take the Universe. A comic fan might assume that the Infinity Gauntlet are coming because they were in the comics, but that doesn't really fit with what happened in the films.

The problem with making him the main villain for the sequel is that 1) Since he's the background villain for 1 and the main villain for 2, the storyline is over, and you have a trilogy that's piecemeal. Imagine if the Emperor was defeated in Star Wars 2. 2) Since he is a threat to the entire universe, there's literally absolutely no way to 'top' that. There's nothing else to threaten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

I agree on the rest of it. I'm tired of hearing all this Ant-Man hate & denial...Pym *is* on the way, like it or not. And with him comes Ultron. You can't have one without the other, no matter how badly you want to retcon the Marvel Universe.

I too am tired of Ant-Man denial. He's not in the MCU, at least, not in the current day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigThor

Definately

I'm pretty satisfied with Thor and Hulk being the high powered guys but if they do add WM or MM I'd rather it be Ms. Marvel.

Agreed

Hank Pym is TOO important to the Marvel universe to not be included, hell he was in even mentioned in THOR.

I too would LOVE to see Ms. Marvel. It doesn't look like we'll have her though, as there are zero plans. So sad.

Notice that the Pym reference was an old man saying he had a friend (usually a peer, btw) who had dealt with SHIELD in the past. That's not an origin story that's coming up, that's something that already happened, a WHILE back. There's little things to hang hope on, sure, but all the signs point to 60s spy Ant-Man. But at least we know that he might be in the MCU, even if he's not in the present day. As an added bonus, even if Pym is in the past, he can still make Ultron to terrorize the Avengers in the present day, can't he?

He's *one* of the most powerful cosmic villains in the Marvel U, but he's not THE most powerful

He's more powerful than most, if not all, Avengers villains. And with the Infinity Gauntlet he was THE most powerful villain they or anyone else had ever faced.

Quote:

nor is he the end-all, be-all, "ultimate" Avengers villain that some people here erroneously claim him to be. Hell, he's not generally associated with the Avengers specifically, but instead acts as an ubervillain to Marvel's more cosmic characters, like Adam Warlock, Silver Surfer, Guardians of the Galaxy and Infinity Watch.

He was never an enemy of the Infinity Watch. And no, he was never specifically an Avengers villain because he was bigger than that. He was a universal threat that everybody has to band together against in order to win. We're talking about a guy who gained infinite power three times. Captain Marvel had to call in the Avengers to help him beat Thanos. Thanos then went on to wipe out half the universe and the Silver Surfer had to call in ALL of Earth's heroes (what was left of them, anyway, as Thanos killed half of them, too) to take him on, and that still wasn't enough.

Quote:

He is far more powerful than Loki, that's for sure, but there's still a ton of villains and groups in the Avengers rogues' gallery that can give the team one helluva fight for many sequels to come. Posters here are just exaggerating (and are just plain wrong) when they act like he needs to be saved for the climax, because (they believe, wrongly) that Avengers will have no more "big guns" to fight after him.

Name a bigger gun than Thanos, because that's the point. The whole purpose of storytelling is the concept of rising action. You increase the stakes as you go. Things get harder. For example...

Avengers ---> Loki tries to conquer the world.
Avengers 2 ---> Ultron tries to wipe out humanity. Human extermination is worse than humans being conquered. The stakes are increased.
Avengers 3 ---> Thanos wants to wipe out all half the living beings in the universe. The genocide of half the universe is worse than the genocide of the human race. The stakes are increased even further.

That makes more sense then...

Avengers ---> Loki tries to conquer the world.
Avengers 2 ---> Thanos wants to wipe out all half the living beings in the universe.
Avengers 3 ---> Ultron wants to wipe out the human race.

...or...

Avengers ---> Loki tries to conquer the world.
Avengers 2 ---> Thanos wants to wipe out all half the living beings in the universe.
Avengers 3 ---> The Avengers battle it out over the SHRA.

In both those cases the stakes DROP from the 2nd to 3rd movie. That's not how you tell a story. If the stakes in the 3rd act are less then they were in the 2nd act then the story's a failure.

The Avengers have plenty of villains which could be classed as big guns, but the fact is that there is no villain they have that can surpass Thanos.

Has anyone said that? What's been said is that there are no bigger guns to fight. You can't even contradict that, because it's so very, very true. There's a reason why in the film

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Thanos' explicit goal is taking over the universe.

Because he's meant to be the ultimate threat. There's a reason that he is the man behind the curtain in 1 and teased before a smaller more personal movie. They are building him up.

Could they have done it differently? Maybe, but at this point, thinking he'll get paid off in 2 and that the Avengers trilogy will suddenly take a new direction with a new background baddie in #3 just sounds silly.

No, his ultimate goal is *not* "taking over the universe."
It's DESTROYING it. And that's where you show that you don't understand Thanos at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Marvel

He's more powerful than most, if not all, Avengers villains. And with the Infinity Gauntlet he was THE most powerful villain they or anyone else had ever faced.

He was never an enemy of the Infinity Watch. And no, he was never specifically an Avengers villain because he was bigger than that. He was a universal threat that everybody has to band together against in order to win. We're talking about a guy who gained infinite power three times. Captain Marvel had to call in the Avengers to help him beat Thanos. Thanos then went on to wipe out half the universe and the Silver Surfer had to call in ALL of Earth's heroes (what was left of them, anyway, as Thanos killed half of them, too) to take him on, and that still wasn't enough.

Name a bigger gun than Thanos, because that's the point. The whole purpose of storytelling is the concept of rising action. You increase the stakes as you go. Things get harder. For example...

Avengers ---> Loki tries to conquer the world.
Avengers 2 ---> Ultron tries to wipe out humanity. Human extermination is worse than humans being conquered. The stakes are increased.
Avengers 3 ---> Thanos wants to wipe out all half the living beings in the universe. The genocide of half the universe is worse than the genocide of the human race. The stakes are increased even further.

That makes more sense then...

Avengers ---> Loki tries to conquer the world.
Avengers 2 ---> Thanos wants to wipe out all half the living beings in the universe.
Avengers 3 ---> Ultron wants to wipe out the human race.

...or...

Avengers ---> Loki tries to conquer the world.
Avengers 2 ---> Thanos wants to wipe out all half the living beings in the universe.
Avengers 3 ---> The Avengers battle it out over the SHRA.

In both those cases the stakes DROP from the 2nd to 3rd movie. That's not how you tell a story. If the stakes in the 3rd act are less then they were in the 2nd act then the story's a failure.

The Avengers have plenty of villains which could be classed as big guns, but the fact is that there is no villain they have that can surpass Thanos.

Star Wars: the Rebellion takes on a massive battle station that has the power to destroy entire planets.
Empire Strikes Back: the Rebellion abandons an isolated ice planet outpost; Luke starts training to be a Jedi; Han and Chewie look up some old friends on Cloud City.

Are you saying ESB was a failure for dropping the stakes?

You keep trying to play up the myth that the stakes have to keep getting higher and higher with each successive episode, and that's false. That's Bayformer thinking.

The stakes don't have to be *higher,* they just have to be *different.*

Star Wars: the Rebellion takes on a massive battle station that has the power to destroy entire planets.
Empire Strikes Back: the Rebellion abandons an isolated ice planet outpost; Luke starts training to be a Jedi; Han and Chewie look up some old friends on Cloud City.

Are you saying ESB was a failure for dropping the stakes?

ANH ended with the Rebels scoring a victory against the Empire.

ESB started with the Empire putting the Rebels on the run and ended with Luke getting his hand chopped off and Han frozen in liquid carbonite. That looks like an increase in stakes to me.

And don't forget that ROTJ ended with a Death Star that was even bigger than the first and the Emperor being a full-fledged villain.

Quote:

You keep trying to play up the myth that the stakes have to keep getting higher and higher with each successive episode, and that's false. That's Bayformer thinking.

Bayformer thinking is bigger explosions. I'm talking about basic story structure which even cavemen understood when they were painting on caves.

In the latter case, the story's deflated a bit by having the most significant event occur in the middle of the story as opposed to the end.

Quote:

The stakes don't have to be *higher,* they just have to be *different.*

When you're dealing with these sorts of movies, then yeah, they have to be higher. Do you really think having a third movie about a planetary threat won't be just a little bit of a letdown if it followed a movie which was about a universal armageddon?

In the latter case, the story's deflated a bit by having the most significant event occur in the middle of the story as opposed to the end.

When you're dealing with these sorts of movies, then yeah, they have to be higher. Do you really think having a third movie about a planetary threat won't be just a little bit of a letdown if it followed a movie which was about a universal armageddon?

The X-trilogy began with a bang and a massive battle in NYC. The sequel went smaller in scale, and involved just a small-scale assault on an "abandoned" military base/lab, and yet the stakes became *much* higher....and most folks consider X2 to be the best in the trilogy. Then the "build up" led to the highest stakes of all, and a massive no-holds barred clash of Mutant and Brotherhood....and everyone *hated* it. POTC and TF continually follow the formula you've laid out, and it's worked great for box office, but *lousy* for story.

Bigger is not better. There comes a point where audiences just get numbed to that kind of overkill. Whedon has already hinted that TA2 will be smaller and more personal; and yet I can guarantee you that he'll still be increasing the tension and building the drama *without* having to make a sequel that's "bigger" than Avengers 1.

Here's a clever way to do CIVIL WAR imo... have it occur at the END of Avengers 2 and have "Phase 3" of the solo movies take place during CIVIL WAR. Thus leading up to Avengers 3: Reassembled (vs Thanos).

And that is why Thanos will be appearing in Avengers 3 rather than Avengers 2.

He can still appear in Avengers 2, in a *smaller* role. That's what I'm saying. The big face-off doesn't happen until Avengers 3, but Thanos is still a visible presence (with dialogue and everything) in Avengers 2. And a fairly prominent role in GOTG, *if* GOTG comes out before 2017.

He can still appear in Avengers 2, in a *smaller* role. That's what I'm saying. The big face-off doesn't happen until Avengers 3, but Thanos is still a visible presence (with dialogue and everything) in Avengers 2. And a fairly prominent role in GOTG, *if* GOTG comes out before 2017.

That's actually what I've been saying the whole time. I always argued that he could appear in Avengers 2 in a small, background role. The only thing I was disputing is the idea that he'd be the central villain in Avengers 2, after which he would be disposed of, which is just ludicrous.

And personally I'm hoping he turns up in Guardians of the Galaxy, maybe even as an ally. If the enemy is the Universal Church of Truth then they could do a loose adaptation of the storyline where Thanos teams up with Adam Warlock to take down the Magus.

That's actually what I've been saying the whole time. I always argued that he could appear in Avengers 2 in a small, background role. The only thing I was disputing is the idea that he'd be the central villain in Avengers 2, after which he would be disposed of, which is just ludicrous.

And personally I'm hoping he turns up in Guardians of the Galaxy, maybe even as an ally. If the enemy is the Universal Church of Truth then they could do a loose adaptation of the storyline where Thanos teams up with Adam Warlock to take down the Magus.

I don't want to see Thanos "disposed of," ever. In Avengers 2 or 3 or Umpteen.
But then again, he's been "killed" several times, often ignominiously. (Ka-Zar comes to mind....) But when your main squeeze is Death Herself, you never really die.

I don't want to see Thanos "disposed of," ever. In Avengers 2 or 3 or Umpteen.
But then again, he's been "killed" several times, often ignominiously. (Ka-Zar comes to mind....) But when your main squeeze is Death Herself, you never really die.

I figure Thanos dying when he's defeated is a given, but Avengers 3 is the most sensible place for it to occur. And hopefully after he's appeared in Guardians of the Galaxy as well. Though yeah, it'd be nice if he did survive his big turn as a villain. Even once he ends his run on the Avengers, it'd be pretty great if he'd continue to play a role in the Guardians of the Galaxy film series (Which I hope beyond hope is going to be wildly successful. I'm still amazed and ecstatic that there's actually going to be a movie with Adam Warlock, Gamorra, Drax the Destroyer, Rocket Raccoon, and Groot!).

LOL! And I just noticed a user named Rocket Raccoon is viewing this thread!

This is my attempt to help clear some of the confusion people are having...

to everyone who is assuming because thanos was show at the end of the avengers that thanos must therefore be the main villain in the avengers 2

this is why i think people are disagreeing with you

just because their is a scene at the end of a marvel movie does not mean it has something to do with the sequel of that movie, for example at the end of Iron Man 2 we are shown agent coulson and thor's hammer which set up thor as the next marvel movie which was thor... that means thanos being show does not mean he has to be the main villain in the avengers 2

what i guess i am trying to say in the simplest terms is that the post credit scene theme that marvel has been using, is mainly to set up this shared marvel cinematic universe and sometimes to directly help set up another marvel movie

iron man 1 - introduces nick fury and the avengers initiative
hulk - tony stark talking to ross about the giant green rage monster
iron man 2 - reveals thor's hammer and sets up thor has the next movie
thor - sets up the cosmic cube (for capt america and also the avengers), Selvig working with SHIELD and loki
capt america - scene w/ fury getting capt america to join the avengers/shield and basically a trailer for the avengers

the theory i am currently prescribing to is that thanos will be the main villain in the avengers 3 and possibly as a puppet master in the avengers 2 much like in the avengers 1 (with the off chance that he could be doing this in thor 2 as well since that is where the infinity gauntlet and the cosmic cube now reside)

also, i think the post credit scene could be like the one in thor where it helps set up two movies... by setting up thanos for the guardians of the galaxy movie

I am not saying that thanos won't be in the avengers 2, i am hoping he will be in it but in the background moving chess pieces but in a way where he is referenced or seen more than in the avengers 1, im just saying he won't be the main villain

This story contains spoilers about “The Avengers.”
“The Avengers” passed the $1-billion mark in worldwide ticket sales this weekend, and a sequel is already in the works. Does that mean writer-director Joss Whedon will be back at the helm of the franchise that unites Marvel’s box-office heavyweights, including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the Hulk?
“You know, I’m very torn,” Whedon said in a sit-down interview in Beverly Hills before the film’s U.S. opening. “It’s an enormous amount of work telling what is ultimately somebody else’s story, even though I feel like I did get to put myself into it. But at the same time, I have a bunch of ideas, and they all seem really cool.”

I think ratcheting up the infighting in part two is necessary, and a good direction to go in, and that's the closest we'll get to civil war. There just aren't enough superheroes in existence to have a war. Maybe the Avengers go rogue against SHIELD, maybe? I dunno, but there's only six of them, and only four of them have any superpowers whatsoever. That's not a civil war, that's a personal disagreement.

I think Thanos will continue to have an ominous presence in future Marvel films. He'll be the "Emperor" so to speak.

The first film did well to build him up as a threat, and we didn't even see him until the credits. I think the best thing to do is carry on hinting at this powerful being behind the scenes, then when he does finally turn up in all his glory, it's a true "holy ****" moment and by then everyone who has been along for the Marvel ride will know and understand what all the fuss is about.

With these additions (particularly the first two), I could do without Hawkeye and Black Widow. I'm all for given them mentions (handling SHIELD assignments overseas), but Marvel can't just keep adding characters without subtracting a few, and these two are the ones I'd be least likely to miss. And if Marvel gives us another solo Hulk film in the near future, I could do without him in TA2 as well. But after what Whedon and Ruffalo did with the character, I loathe the idea of having to wait until The Avengers 3 (2018 at the earliest) to see him on screen again.

Villain:
Ultron

I was under the assumption that the Thanos easter egg was just that: an easter egg meant to get fans excited about future possibilities. I don't think it was meant to be any sort of confirmation that he'd be the villain in the sequel. It established Thanos in this universe. That's about as far as you should read into it for now.